Appeal No. 1999-0086
Application No. 08/612,820
Claims 1-33 stand finally rejected as being based on an
inadequate disclosure under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Claims 1 and 18 stand further finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Niwa.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
The Appeal Brief (Paper No. 9) was filed May 11, 1998. In response to1
the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 10) dated June 3, 1998, a Reply Brief (Paper
No. 12) was filed July 7, 1998, which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner in the communication (Paper No. 13) dated July 10, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007